Is it worth the effort?

**Is the food going to the right horse?**

The adjustment of Kazakhstan's national budget has sparked heated debates. The reallocation figures themselves speak volumes: the Ministry of Defense will receive an additional 41.3 billion tenge ($90.87 million), the National Security Committee (KNB) — 31 billion ($68.21 million), and the Ministry of Internal Affairs — 26.1 billion ($57.43 million). At the same time, the budget of the Ministry of Labor has been reduced by 55 billion tenge ($121 million), education spending by 10.3 billion ($22.66 million), support for small business has been cut, and several projects for the construction of new roads and border checkpoints have been suspended.

**Pressure mounting from both inside and outside**

The world and the region around Central Asia are changing very rapidly. Geopolitical instability, international conflicts, and risks of hybrid threats force any state to think about sovereignty and security. For Kazakhstan, strengthening the army, border services, and military infrastructure has become a top state priority.

The security sector is not just about tanks and soldiers on the border. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and the KNB are responsible for law and order inside the country, the protection of critical infrastructure, and the fight against cybercrime and extremism. The increase in spending is aimed at upgrading equipment, communication systems, improving the material supply of personnel, and bolstering border lines.

**Saving on "unspent" money**

In government practice, cutting the budget for the social sphere or small business by no means always implies a direct refusal to make payments. Often it is connected with so-called "underspending." Some business support programs or infrastructure projects failed to start on time or got stuck at the tender and documentation stage. It is not ruled out that the reason lies in corruption and kickbacks. At the same time, if allocated billions "sit idle" and are not spent before the end of the year, they are redirected to where financing is urgently needed and where it is guaranteed to be used for its intended purpose.

The cancellation or reduction of budgets for building new roads and facilities reflects a new approach: instead of launching expensive long-term projects, state resources are focused on the maintenance and repair of existing roads and infrastructure.

**The "communicating vessels" effect: new risks**

In economics, a simple rule applies: if something is added somewhere, it is inevitably taken from somewhere else. Redirecting billions to the security sector inevitably leaves a hole in the social sphere. When the budget of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection is cut (by almost $121 million), it primarily hits the most vulnerable population groups — pensioners, large families, people with disabilities, and low-income citizens. Even a temporary cut or delay in the indexation of social benefits is felt extremely painfully by people under inflationary conditions.

Such an imbalance creates serious social risks. An attempt to strengthen state security by reducing support for the population and small business could backfire. Rising social tensions, declining incomes, and a sense of injustice among citizens traditionally become a catalyst for popular discontent and protest moods. As a result, a vicious circle may arise: the state will have to direct more resources and efforts of military and law enforcement structures not toward external threats, but toward curbing internal discontent.

**A strategy or a forced move?**

Reducing spending on social protection, education, and entrepreneurship is an unpopular decision that causes noticeable public resonance. However, the government is betting on national security and stability. The main question is whether the state will be able to maintain a balance — so that the strengthening of the security sector does not turn into a social explosion.